Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

N-N v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of New YorkEric R. KomiteeDecided May 18, 2021No. 1:19-cv-05295

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief directing USCIS to adjudicate their requests for employment authorization, adjudicate their eligibility for U visas, and issue interim employment authorization documents to those who submitted applications before January 17, 2017.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief directing USCIS to adjudicate their requests for employment authorization, adjudicate their eligibility for U visas, and issue interim employment authorization documents to those who submitted applications before January 17, 2017.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
It is the administration of these interim alternatives (or the lack of such administration) that Plaintiffs challenge here.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction), 12(b)(3) (improper venue), and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction), 12(b)(3) (improper venue), and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third and Sixth Causes of Action is denied, except that plaintiff O-D-B’s claims under the Third and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third and Sixth Causes of Action is denied, except that plaintiff O-D-B’s claims under the Third and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Third and Sixth Causes of Action is denied, except that plaintiff O-D-B’s claims under the Third and Sixth Causes of Action are dismissed.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ applications were all filed between August 2015, Compl. ¶¶ 65 (N-N); 75 (G-V-R), and January 2018, id. ¶ 91 (N-P-G).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
The Court lacks jurisdiction to review the claim that Defendants have failed to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6) (Counts II & V)
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: goes on; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
C. The Court lacks jurisdiction to review the claim that Defendants have failed to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6) (Counts II & V)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-05295
Filed
September 17, 2019
Ended
October 20, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
764 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Second Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.